• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

He don't need no stinking Senate

Our own village idiot obummer pretty much embodying everything that's wrong with politics.... as usual. Sadly that's why we're better off when he's playing golf.
 
I think Barry needs to start taking off his shirt - maybe then you guys would fawn over him like you do with Putin?

Possibly even turn a blind eye to all the 'abuse' Obama puts you through,.. since you have no issues with how Putin treats his people.
 
eskimospy said:
My hope is that it leads to a civics 101 class for you. He definitely doesn't need the Senate to make non legally binding agreements with other countries.
Click to expand...

And Bush handed the EPA enough power that Obama likely doesn't need a law to perform all the executive actions the "agreement" would call for.
 
eskimospy said:
My hope is that it leads to a civics 101 class for you. He definitely doesn't need the Senate to make non legally binding agreements with other countries.
Click to expand...

The end result would be legally binding per the article. The idea is to modify without adding new legal requirements and that it says would not require a new ratification process. No new required conditions is the key to the strategy.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
The end result would be legally binding per the article. The idea is to modify without adding new legal requirements and that it says would not require a new ratification process. No new required conditions is the key to the strategy.
Click to expand...

The only parts of the end result that would be legally binding are the parts of the end result that are already legally binding. ie: any agreements he's making now aren't binding.
 
Edit: I'm on my smart phone and its too tedious to read the link but I have a good idea what it's about.

I used to believe Obama couldn't get anything done because the Republican controlled House would not work with him. This is still true, however this is the hand he has been dealt its time to either sit and wait to have meeting with them about what can be accomplished or offer more substantial comprises.
Seriously if I were him I'd be waiting in a visible spot for any Republican Representative to meet me. Every day I would make a point of look I'm not on vacation, I want to get something done come meet me. Lets get something done.
 
If anyone remembers the thread earlier in the year about Texas executing a Mexican national without giving him access to his consulate, then you might remember that the current conservative USSC has already shown they think states don't have to abide by legally binding treaties anyway. (which I solidly proved is actually in direct violation of the Constitution and that the USSC is 100% wrong in that case) So what does it matter if this ends up being a legal treaty or not.
 
eskimospy said:
The only parts of the end result that would be legally binding are the parts of the end result that are already legally binding. ie: any agreements he's making now aren't binding.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point of the strategy. The agreements he's making now are not technically "new" agreements, they are modifications to existing agreements and thus ARE legally binding. So yes, it's essentially an end-run around the process, par for the course.
 
PokerGuy said:
That's the whole point of the strategy. The agreements he's making now are not technically "new" agreements, they are modifications to existing agreements and thus ARE legally binding. So yes, it's essentially an end-run around the process, par for the course.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, and nothing outside of the scope of the original agreements is legally binding.

To quote the article:

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.
Click to expand...

The conditions that are binding are from the 1992 treaty. The things they are adding are voluntary.

A declaration of tyranny based on lack of understanding of a news article. Par for the course.
 
eskimospy said:
No it isn't, and nothing outside of the scope of the original agreements is legally binding.

To quote the article:



The conditions that are binding are from the 1992 treaty. The things they are adding are voluntary.

A declaration of tyranny based on lack of understanding of a news article. Par for the course.
Click to expand...

Because Obama, of course.
 
eskimospy said:
A declaration of tyranny based on lack of understanding of a news article. Par for the course.
Click to expand...

There was certainly no declaration of "tyranny" from me, but feel free to make things up. It's an end-run around the normal process, resorting to some convoluted scheme to "amend" old agreements just because you either don't have the leadership skills to get anything passed or the changes he seeks are lousy and should not be passed. Like I said, par for the course.
 
What are Republicans in Senate doing about Climate change? Same thing they are doing about every other issue, nothing except throwing a tantrum over Obama doing something about it.
 
PokerGuy said:
There was certainly no declaration of "tyranny" from me, but feel free to make things up. It's an end-run around the normal process, resorting to some convoluted scheme to "amend" old agreements just because you either don't have the leadership skills to get anything passed or the changes he seeks are lousy and should not be passed. Like I said, par for the course.
Click to expand...

So I assume you're admitting they aren't legally binding now and have just gone back into raging about Obama.

Par for the course, indeed.
 
thraashman said:
If anyone remembers the thread earlier in the year about Texas executing a Mexican national without giving him access to his consulate, then you might remember that the current conservative USSC has already shown they think states don't have to abide by legally binding treaties anyway. (which I solidly proved is actually in direct violation of the Constitution and that the USSC is 100% wrong in that case) So what does it matter if this ends up being a legal treaty or not.
Click to expand...

right Obama compromises just like the gun control crowd compromises.

'instead of banning guns, we'll just make you register your guns'
 
eskimospy said:
The only parts of the end result that would be legally binding are the parts of the end result that are already legally binding. ie: any agreements he's making now aren't binding.
Click to expand...

I know. There seems to be confusion about this process on the part of some but I'm not sure why. There are additions to whatever exists and so the treaty is changed, but because the added parts are not mandates the legalities in place remain unchanged which means there's nothing to renegotiate. If on the other hand a change in language results in a change of what is covered or required then the Senate would have to be involved. That's not the case here.
 
senseamp said:
What are Republicans in Senate doing about Climate change? Same thing they are doing about every other issue, nothing except throwing a tantrum over Obama doing something about it.
Click to expand...

Man, that sounds like a cush fucking job... whose dick do I have to suck to get elected as a republican senator and what state do I have to suck it in?
 
eskimospy said:
So I assume you're admitting they aren't legally binding now
Click to expand...

Yep, my understanding of it was incorrect, the "modifications" do not appear binding. Unlike some *cough* *cough*, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong on something. The modifications being non-binding makes the whole thing even more pointless and dumber.

and have just gone back into raging about Obama.
Click to expand...

Raging? Perhaps you are not familiar with the meaning of the word "raging"? Critical of the idiot in chief, yes. Raging? Not likely, I don't harbor rage towards very many things or people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top